Intinction?

Status
Not open for further replies.
From the link: Ruling Elder Rae Whitlock, Grace Central Church, Columbus (Convener) Ruling Elder Sam Foster, Harvest Church, Medina Ruling Elder Tim Ling, Zion Reformed Church, Winesburg Teaching Elder Todd Naille, Granville Chapel, Granville Teaching Elder Jason Strong, Zion Reformed Church, Winesburg Teaching Elder Matt Timmons, Ashland
 
For anyone familiar with study committees. Is the first question pretty standard? (When and how did the practice of intinction come into the PCA?) Depending on the outcome of questions 2-5, question 1 has the potential to carry an unspoken rebuke. Am I just reading too much into it?

I ask because it seems (to me) the PCA sometimes sets up study committees in order to levy judgment in lieu of process. I'm probably off-base, and would welcome someone to correct my thinking.
For what it's worth I think intinction is unbiblical, but I have an allergy to study committees handling this sort of thing.
 
For anyone familiar with study committees. Is the first question pretty standard? (When and how did the practice of intinction come into the PCA?) Depending on the outcome of questions 2-5, question 1 has the potential to carry an unspoken rebuke. Am I just reading too much into it?

I ask because it seems (to me) the PCA sometimes sets up study committees in order to levy judgment in lieu of process. I'm probably off-base, and would welcome someone to correct my thinking.

That's actually a valid point, and I'm thankful that you raised it. This is the first study committee that I've been on, so it'll be good for me (and us) to keep in mind.

Anyone else w/ PCA study committee experience (on any court level) that can chime in on those concerns?
 
FYI, the report was only received as information by the presbytery. It was before the presbytery for adoption as well, and that motion was defeated. It's now a non-issue.
 
I agree with the words of your statement, brother Josh... but probably not with the spirit. :) I'm out.
 
It is interesting, in the report at least, the reasons cited by those supporting the practice are almost entirely pragmatic, for convenience- no biblical basis given by its supporters.

No basis given, apparently in the PCA Book of Church Order, either.
 
FYI, the report was only received as information by the presbytery. It was before the presbytery for adoption as well, and that motion was defeated. It's now a non-issue.

Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean that intinction is now banned in that Presbytery?
 
Ok, I did not know what intinction meant but from the report by the committee am I correct that it is partaking of communion/Lord's Supper by dipping the bread into the wine/juice and then eating? From the brief skimming I did I take it as being unbiblical, correct?
If you visited a church that practiced this would you refrain from participating?
I am unable to read the report in its entirety but am I correct in assuming that there are verses and quotes from the book of church order or confession to prove the stance?
 
FYI, the report was only received as information by the presbytery. It was before the presbytery for adoption as well, and that motion was defeated. It's now a non-issue.

Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean that intinction is now banned in that Presbytery?

It means that it remains an acceptable and allowable practice in the presbytery.
 
If the practice is forced (ie the cup is refused but the bread dipped and given only), I would refrain. The practice is not biblical and our standards are really clear as the report discusses, and this has been discussed on other threads here if you search on the subject of intinction.
If you visited a church that practiced this would you refrain from participating?
 
If anyone's interested in the minority's answer to the committee's report, PM me and I can provide it to you in the next few days (or you can just wait for it to show up on Aquila). I won't link it here due to the PB's already-existing position that intinction is contra-confessional
 
FYI, the report was only received as information by the presbytery. It was before the presbytery for adoption as well, and that motion was defeated. It's now a non-issue.

Respectfully, brother, it is still very much an issue; however, it seems the Presbytery has chosen to not deal with it, at this time.
 
Josh
however, it should be a non-issue in that it's not even considerable in light of the Scripture, or the Westminster Standards.

I agree it should be a non-issue. Thankfully I haven't come accross it in the churches I attend here in Scotland.
 
I would not expect there to be substantial division on this point within the denomination, and had not heard of or seen it practiced until recently.

The reason for the former is that biblical, reformed and presbyterian denominations hold a "high" view of the sacraments. They are central to public worship, and an ordinary way God builds the faith of his people, in a very real and tangible way.

While most of the Directory of Worship is not adopted as constitutional authority for the denomination, Chapters 56-58, relating to Baptism and the Lord's Supper have been. They are very intentionally, deliberately adopted as constitutional authority. Adopted to be followed carefully, and by oath, not only by church officers, but even by members through their vows.

Chapter 58, reflecting doctrine, very specifically and carefully lays out "Administration of the Lord's Supper."

For the life of me, I cannot conceive of an invention of "intinction" when the process implicitly lays out separate distribution and reflection upon each of the two elements.

That is, how anyone under vows could disregard the carefulness, and the decency and propriety that is safeguarded by the practice, and the doctrine explained with it.

If it takes a church court ruling, as to what our Book of Church Order requires of officers dispensing the elements, then that needs to be faced, and dealt with post haste. The Lord' Supper is not something we can ignore, be divided over, or tolerate confusion about.

It is too important toward the Honor and Glory of our Lord, and His worship, administered by those He has appointed among us!
 
Scott it should be pointed out that some (many?0 in the RPC-ES practiced intinction, both historically and at the time of the joining and receiving.

So what seems like such an open and shut case of confessionalism to you, did not appear to be so clear cut to either those brothers joining, or those doing the receiving. Nor does it seem as clear to those fathers and brothers in the several presbyteries the have the practice and do not consider it to be an exception to the standards.
 
So what seems like such an open and shut case of confessionalism to you,
I understand what you mean here, Kevin, but for those following, the case being made by the Book of Church Order, not the Confession (Westminster Standards) and what is so carefully defined by Chapter 58 by the Book of Church Order, "Administration of the Lord's Supper."

Administration of the Lord's Supper is not something that was left to chance by the founding fathers of the PCA.


Nor does it seem as clear to those fathers and brothers in the several presbyteries the have the practice

Anecdotal evidence only, I have never seen this in a PCA church, and until recently had never heard that this had happened, anywhere in our denomination.

Important as the Lord's Supper is to us all, and how central it is to how we worship, we MUST settle this as a matter of practice, and follow unity on it, and quickly.

Let us pray toward that end.
 
Kevin:

...it should be pointed out that some (many?) in the RPC,ES practiced intinction, both historically and at the time of the joining and receiving.

I'd like to challenge you on this, in an entirely friendly way.

I could more readily admit for the sake of discussion our speaking in terms of "few", though even there it would have to be demonstrated from historical record.

In short, after working here in the Historical Center for twelve years, I've never seen mention of such practice in that denomination. They did one study on the admission of children to the Lord's Supper [http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/rpces/docsynod/312.html] and the word intinction does not appear in that brief study. Nor does it appear in the index to the volume Documents of Synod (our own Curt Lovelace prepared that index!).

Can you cite specifics? The name of the church(es) or officiating pastors?

Also, to speak of it being the "historical" practice of those as yet unnamed, the RPC,ES only existed as a denomination for 17 years. Not a lot of time to get up much of a historical practice.

Looking forward to your equally amiable response.
 
FYI, the report was only received as information by the presbytery. It was before the presbytery for adoption as well, and that motion was defeated. It's now a non-issue.

Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean that intinction is now banned in that Presbytery?

It means that it remains an acceptable and allowable practice in the presbytery.

Rae, I disagree with your interpretation here. Voting down a proposed restriction on a practice doesn't mean the practice is permitted. Imagine if a Presbytery were to vote down a report saying that the ordination of women to the office of Deacon is prohibited by the Scriptures and our standards. It doesn't matter - it is still not permitted in the PCA. Similarly, BCO 58-5 requires the elements be distributed separately, wine after the bread (and implies their consumption separately as well). To make the practice permissible, the Assembly would need to do more than reject the overture coming before it this year. It would need to amend the structure of BCO 58-5. Now, if churches don't follow the BCO here, that's a different matter. The Presbytery has responsibility to review the records of church Sessions, redress whatever they may have done contrary to order and take effectual care that they observe the Constitution of the Church. (BCO 13-9b).
 
Alright, I know I'm going to have to say five "Hail Calvins" for this ;) but what is Intinction?
 
Intinction is the practice during the Lord's Supper, where in the partaking of the elements, one takes the bread and dips it into the cup filled with wine and then sticks the bread (after dipping) in their mouth consuming it (that is the informal description so you understand all the actions).
 
Intinction is the practice during the Lord's Supper, where in the partaking of the elements, one takes the bread and dips it into the cup filled with wine and then sticks the bread (after dipping) in their mouth consuming it (that is the informal description so you understand all the actions).

Seems like a minor detail to worry about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top